More Explanation on the January 6th Report … From Chuck Rosenberg
Unless you focus on left-wing cable news, you are not likely to know who Chuck Rosenberg is. I shall explain — and then let you know his view of the work of the January 6th Committee.
I did make a reference to Rosenberg in a previous commentary, but it seems some readers still miss the point – in some cases purposely. In any case, they continue to spew their flawed or biased thinking. So, I shall try to give those poor souls a more detailed report.
Rosenberg was once the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He previously served as Chief-of-Staff for FBI Director James Comey. He currently works as a “legal analyst” for NBC/MSNBC and as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University. He’s the stereotypical progressive Democrat. His strong negative feelings about President Trump have been evident in his many appearances on MSNBC.
I mention his background because it is important in appreciating his professional view of the work of the January 6th Committee.
During a recent appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Rosenberg was asked his opinion regarding the work of the Committee. He praised the SYMBOLIC importance of the Committee findings – and believed that the Report helps form public opinion. He noted that the Report of the Committee may seem “conclusive to the average person” (and that has been the goal of the Committee), it is not necessarily sufficient to bring charges or win a conviction in a court-of-law.
While there have been some allusions to the difference between a one-sided political committee report and a case suitable for legal prosecution, it has never been better explained to the public than it was by Rosenberg.
So … what about the importance if the Committee’s work in supporting the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations into the same matters?
Virtually all the left-wing talking heads speak of the Committee’s recommendations as findings of guilt – proof that the alleged crimes were committed. They point to their view of the evidence as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump & Co. are guilty on all “charges” – actually only accusations, of course. (The same biased rush-to-judgment we saw for two years in the Russian conspiracy theory). In the court-of-public-opinion there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Remarkably, Rosenberg actually called the work of the Committee “meaningless” in terms of any investigation and prosecution by the DOJ. That is a very strong summation – especially in view the importance being put out by Democrats and their left-wing media cronies. “Meaningless,” he said. Even though I did not go that far, but I think he may be correct.
Rosenberg added that “Telling the Department of Justice what charges to bring is not all that helpful.” (Note the quotation marks). The decision to indict or not is a determination the DOJ will have to make on its own based on its own investigation—currently being carried out by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Rosenberg specifically explained the weaknesses in the Committee Report vis a vis a court-of-law. He noted that the Committee Report has symbolic value, but in terms of the DOJ investigation, the Committee findings have:
“No precedential value. No evidentiary value. No substantive value. No procedural value.”
Rosenberg delineated the problem with the one-sided Committee Deliberations, saying:
“There was no judge. There were no defense attorneys. There was no cross-examination. There were no rules-of-evidence. There were no rules-of-criminal-procedure.”
(Keep in mind, those are Rosenberg’s words, not mine.)
Rosenberg noted that every “story” laid out by the prosecution in court, will be challenged. “Every story will have someone telling an opposite story,” said Rosenberg.
He also pointed out that there was an estimated 8000 hours of video testimony, but the Committee selected only 20 hours to share with the public.
Rosenberg conceded that providing all the documentation and testimony could be somewhat helpful. But there is a downside. The last thing Smith and the DOJ wants is to have all that testimony and evidence made public. That would seriously undermine the official investigation by giving various individuals valuable information regarding the testimony of others and the revelation of evidence –enabling them to craft better defense arguments, if necessary.
Then there is the problem of having sufficient evidence to indict AND convict. As was noted by Rosenberg, indictments are rather easy to obtain because the lowest legal threshold of “probable cause.” A criminal conviction requires “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” – the highest legal threshold.
Prosecutors are loath to be indicted unless they feel reasonably confident of a conviction by 12 jurors selected by both sides in the case. Meeting the threshold for criminal conviction would be especially challenging in a case involving a President of the United States. Can you imagine finding jurors who are not aware of the issues or have not already formed personal opinions? That is why many knowledgeable observers raise questions as to whether the DOJ will even indict on all – or any – of the accusations of the Committee.
It is a huge risk in this case. A failure to convict would give Trump bragging rights over the investigators in Congress and in the DOJ. He would see his legal vindication as further evidence of being persecuted – the victim of another Witch Hunt. Rosenberg’s personal bias was seen when he said that an acquittal “could be devastating.” Trump and his supporters may not see it in that light, of course.
As I had stressed in my previous column — and which applies to this one – the objective examination of the value and meaning of the Committee Report and the future decision of the DOJ is not intended to prejudge any merits – or lack thereof – in terms of the guilt of Trump or anyone else. It is just to note that public opinion of the moment seems to be racing far ahead of reality for the many reasons Rosenberg professionally expressed.
So far, the entire issue has been limited to the court-of-public-opinion and controlled only by the prosecution. It will be a different situation if or when the Committee accusations go to a real court.
So, there ‘tis.
What a ridiculous waste of our money
Typical Demoncrat overspending of phoney money that we DO NOT have!
In any Communist country if you can’t beat your opponent you imprison them or they disappear. Why should it be any different in the U.S. We run elections the same way they do.
ANY reports that come from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and NPR are all weighted left news reports. So it’s fake news and Not real journalism.
All of Congress, including this Committee, are employees of the People of the United States of America. Employers have a right to know what their employees are doing while on the job. We, the People, should have access to every piece of evidence available to or created by this Committee. It would help us decide for whom to vote in future elections.
another democrat idiot !!!
Wow, it’s not like Larry to copy/paste the ragged right blogosphere with little Larry value-add on top. IMO, Larry is roughly right on all counts, it is and has always been billed as, just information. Larry, and Chuck, are not telling us anything new about the process of law here. Everything Chuck says is downhill from there. But the information as information being meaningless, hardly. It is information. DOJ can take it or leave it, but if they take it, they will have to use DOJ procedures to vet and validate. No data will be taken at face value.
Larry, and Chuck, are not telling us anything new. Neither has damaged the compelling evidence discovered by the January 6th kinda bipartisan Committee.
The Conservative MSM Washington Examiner said: “Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said the referrals from the perspective of Congress are “important,” adding that it’s “symbolic and it’s momentous” during an interview with MSNBC.”
Then he qualified: “If you’re talking about it from the perspective of the Department of Justice, it is somewhere between meaningless and completely meaningless.” He added: “If they’re acting on a mostly partisan referral from a mostly partisan committee, and they take the recommendations of the referrals and charge the people that the committee wanted them to charge, then it looks in some quarters like they’re acting at the behest of the committee.”
That’s the referrals he’s talking about, not the evidence. And the referrals are mainly for the public, not the DOJ.
Other legal experts, legal-expert pundits, disagreed with Chuck, and now, Larry. A VT law school professor told the Examiner: “that it’s ultimately up to the DOJ on what it does with the referrals. “I think this puts additional pressure on them to do something,” and that’s the bottom line. Joy Vance said similar, but she’s pretty much a MSNBC hack. FOX folks have said as much.
The referrals are meaningless, Congress has no legal standing, DOJ is supposedly not political (except many feel Barr was), and the evidence will be available to all defense teams, by law. Evidence is always made available to the defense. It’s the law, Larry. It is unusual for said evidence to be made public, but not unprecedented, especially in the time of Trump where he loves to do it in the road in front of everyone, all the time literally forcing the prosecution to go public, early and often. A very good strategy IF you think you can pollute the jury pool before selection. Pollute meaning spin in your direction.
All of the committee’s evidence, including video, will be released by the committee within a month, according to one of the committee members to CNN. Larry says this gives the defense an advantage. “The last thing Smith and the DOJ wants is to have all that testimony and evidence made public. That would seriously undermine the official investigation by giving various individuals valuable information regarding the testimony of others and the revelation of evidence –enabling them to craft better defense arguments, if necessary.” Fact is that all defendants in all criminal cases have the right of due process to see and obtain any and all evidence in possession of police/prosecutors that is potentially exculpatory to the defense. There are sanctions for disobeying this law.
IMO, Larry is roughly right on this opinion, I agree, but it is really not new news. After hundreds of Republican Congressional witch hunts, the public is pretty aware of the process and legal ramifications. Larry likes to say his audience is well read and up to snuff on the issues of the day. Makes you wonder why this story has any relevance with that crowd? Sure didn’t provide any new news to me. Seemed more like a political puff piece since, supposedly, everyone knows already. I mean at least Democrats generally try something once, and then move on to something else. But Republicans have been Congressional witch hunt Energizer Bunnies; they kept Benghazi going and going. They kept after Bill Clinton until finally hiding under his desk to catch a blow job. Well, they couldn’t even catch him except for lying about a blow job, under his desk, by a legal participant. Not sure the Federal offense on that on. Even playing on the job is hard to pin on a guy whose hours are 24x7x365……
But what this is; is information based on investigations and testimony, as given by American citizens, under oath, mostly Republican, working with and for Trump or Government. Perhaps hundreds of them. It is also video evidence of the day, video evidence of the witnesses. It details multiple plots to overturn the election and retain Presidential powers. Some, like the court cases, are stupid, but legal. Most are illegal. Multiple plans, of which the final insurrection-inside-a-riot-inside-a-protest-following-a-Trump-really is just the last gasp.
Or is it?
DOJ will now review, gather more evidence, check and recheck the committee’s evidence that’s pertinent to the DOJ case and the WILL, IMO, indict one or more people, a very good chance Donald J. Trump is one of them. Probably obstruction of official proceedings if I were to bet. Meadows will flip, Eastman will cry, and we can put this shit in a trashcan, enact some laws so never again, lick our wounds and move forward.
Frank Stetson … One of my New Year resolutions — if I can keep it — is to no long respond to you directly. I may talk about you in the third person — as you do of me — when responding to the comments of others. But your childish level of personal arracks and incessant bickering has warn thin. The New Your will be happier — at least for me.
Frank Steteson. LMAO Even when you agree with me, you cannot give up your obsession to attack. You set you insulting tone in the first sentence. You say nothing new in the commentary. You question its relevancy. Yet, if you had a competent level of reading comprehension, I explained why underlining the issue is necessary. It is because folks like you keep spreading the idea that guilt has been proven.
You also continue to say things that are just stupid. You say the referrals are for the public … not the DOJ. They are not a press release. They are official referral to the DOJ recommending prosecution by the DOJ. You then say the value of the referrals is to put pressure ON the DOJ. That is true … partisan POLITICAL pressure.
And you defending the Clinton blowjob — and his perjury about — is just plan nuts. There is fair debate over the impeachment, but trying to defend what occurred is irrational.
Then you say one of the most ignorant statements … that the DOJ is not political (except under Barr). Good God! The DOJ is as political as any other Cabinet member. The AG is appointed by the President and is a always trusted partisan ally of the same. I cannot think of a single AG who did not, at times, defend the boss politically. From Nixon’s John Mitchell (Watergate) to Obama’s Eric Holder (Fast and Furious). The latter even got a Contempt of Congress charge for his political protection of Obama)..
You say my commentary is not news to you. I fear that nothing that does not fit into your obsession is news to you. You do not operate on news, but on spin and propaganda and an excessive desire to trump the Larry Horist of your imagination.
The deeper you go into your anti-Larry Horist obsession, the more foolish and pathetic you appear. Everyone needs a hobby, but you need to get a different one — for you own good.
It seems you are extremely thin-skinned when you say: “Frank Stetson. LMAO Even when you agree with me, you cannot give up your obsession to attack” yet do not offer the example of what irks you once again, as I have asked numerous times in the past. The post started by saying “roughly right, ” meaning not totally. And you seem surprised I didn’t agree 100%? It seems to take a difference of opinion as “attack” which of course leads you to your belief that many who respond often are obsessed with you, personally. Whatever floats your boat.
“I explained why underlining the issue is necessary. It is because folks like you keep spreading the idea that guilt has been proven.” And earlier you have explained how your readers are so well read as to not needing to be reminded of current events, underlining issues, and even supporting facts. YOU told us your readers already know. Which is it?
I can not argue with your belief that perjury about a legal blow job is an impeachable offense. It is your opinion. You have a similiar strange belief that extorting a foreign sovereign nation with taxpayer dollars as the stick is NOT an impeachable offense, even when the extortion is basically on tape.
It is my opinion that the referrals were for the public; my opinion, pretty hard for you to assail that, even though you still had to try. The referrals were highly publicized re: potential, re: the vote, re: where the public could find them. There was a media frenzy before as Raskin and others were on-air, across the nation, to tell us what they were going to tell us, then tell us what they told us, and finally, what it all means.
The referrals were then issued in their 150+ page Executive Summary released to the public at the same time DoJ got it. Sure, not intended as a public message.
Your pushback on DoJ may be correct, sad if true, and personally, I can’t say it’s 100% all the time, every time. Otherwise, it’s broken as the SCOTUS alignment with us or them is broken. You may be right, but that’s a tragedy.
I could care less about Larry Horist. I do care about the issues of the day and how wrong you right-wing blogosphere types get it so often. I would love to argue the facts, but your competency on being able to do that is questionable, based on your post. The story was fine, roughly right IMO, meaning I had some issues which I examined and you danced about. Let me know when you desire serious discussion versus whining about being picked on. Better yet, show me.
Frank Stetson. … Oh my god!!! You actually said “I could careless about Larry Horist.” What an unhinged absurdity. You hang on and respond to every word I write. You engage in continues insults and ad hominin attacks. You invent what YOU think I think. You repeated beg me to respond to you — or at least complain when I do not. Not only is your obsession overwhelming, it is now obvious it is totally blinding. I will help you with one of my New Year resolutions — to stop feeding your obsession. You will have to do the rest on your own.
“Lay on, Macduff,
And damned be him that first cries, “Hold, enough!”
Actually, you took it out of context and, even then, couldn’t get it right….try:
“I could care less about Larry Horist. I do care about the issues of the day and how wrong you right-wing blogosphere types get it so often. I would love to argue the facts, but your competency on being able to do that is questionable, based on your post. The story was fine, roughly right IMO, meaning I had some issues which I examined and you danced about. Let me know when you desire serious discussion versus whining about being picked on. Better yet, show me.”
Key points. I don’t care about Larry the man, I care about the issue. Larry just has to deflect based on his emotional overload..
Keep those issue-related comments coming.
While both Larry and Frank are substantially correct, I think that Larry is exaggerating the opinion of a former US Attorney to reach a “not guilty” verdict, if only for his own peace of mind.
The purpose of the Jan 6th Committee is to gather evidence to influence legislation to make sure that a situation like Jan 6th doesn’t happen again. That legislation has already been A secondary purpose is to inform the public about what happened. The public was not privy to all of the details of the day nor do they have the ability to follow up or ask questions of witnesses. They only knew what happened in public view. That is the purpose of the 800+ page report.
The Committee shares its evidence and makes a recommendation to the DOJ about possible crimes. The Committee members are mostly lawyers and/or prosecutors, as well as being experienced legislators, so they know the law and what the laws demand for conviction. The DOJ is a separate branch of government and has no obligation to do anything with the recommendations.
On the other hand, with so much publicly presented evidence of criminal conspiracy and activities, if the DOJ did nothing, the conclusion by most of the public would be “you can do anything if you’re rich or powerful”, which is not how our system of justice is supposed to work. So, the DOJ will find a balance – use the evidence given to it, in addition to evidence that it has already gathered on its own, and make the best cases it can. For the DOJ to completely ignore the recommendations of a bipartisan Committee of Congress would be a dereliction of duty.
And, yes, it was a bipartisan Committee. If anyone had suggested before Jan 6th that Liz Cheney or Adam Kinziger were not “real” Republicans, they would have been laughed out of the room. McCarthy made a poorly calculated choice to nominate some extremely fanatic Trump supporters (who may have actually been involved in the Jan 6th conspiracy) and was told “try again”, and again made the strategic choice to make no further nominations.
Read it how you like, but there is not a “not guilty” conclusion just because some talking head says the recommendations are meaningless. That’s the very definition of recommendation – “this is what we think you should do, even though it’s your choice”. Whether it means something or not is dependent on the trustworthiness and influence of the recommending body.
Joseph S Bruder… Where did I exaggerate Rosenberg’s opinion? I quoted him directly. Is your brain ALWAYS on the spin cycle?
You are cherry-picking and highlighting the remarks of one pundit to support your own hope in your mind that Trump is not guilty. There are other pundits that say the exact opposite, but you don’t report about them because it doesn’t fit your thesis. This has been your pattern since Trump was President, during Trump’s worst behaviors, during impeachment proceedings, throughout the Jan 6th Committee hearings, and continues unabated. You will just not admit to yourself or anyone else that Trump is and always has been a criminal.
hey, I got “substantially correct” without the “exaggerating;” I’m calling the win!
The real questions are: is Joseph S Bruder actually Joe’s brother (it was so much sweeter when I thought so)
and is:
Joseph Gilbertson real? I can only find dead ones which might explain a lot :>)
I can pretty much guarantee that Stetson is not being Frank with you :>) think of it as “all hat, frank and in your face, all the time.
Joseph S Bruder … You seem to have caught a brain disease from Frank. Part of the symptoms are creating an imaginary Larry Horist as a strawman foil. You keep saying that in my mind Trump is not guilty. That is a total misrepresentation of this Larry Horist’s thinking. You either failed reading comprehension or are just lying through the Larry Horist that resides in your mind. Since I have expressed my view that I do not want to see Trump in the White House again — or even as the GOP standard bearer — I am agnostic on the issue of his innocence or guilt. I have even expressed that my opinions about the course of justice are NOT related to the merits — or lack of merits –of the various cases. I have also expressed my opinion that he is in the greatest danger in the cases involving his business — and that he is without defense in the case of the White House documents. You have claimed that I only wrote about one source — and also that I exaggerated his opinion. You failed to respond to my question as to where I exaggerated? I chose to use Rosenberg as one example. Many of the prosecutors on the telly have offered similar opinions. More importantly, you accused me of using one source but you have not offered any counterpoint as to what he said was wrong. You complete ignore the relevant points.
Wow Frank! For something that is “not new news” you sure do take a lot of words! But I did enjoy your comment. I agree with you and Larry in most of your words. I did like your Clinton analogy! Nobody should be put through the ringer like Billy was just for getting a much needed BJ. I did like Monica’s defense that she “did the deed but did not inhale”. Very Clintonesque of her!
Now, as AN independent who feels many Independents will agree with me, I do see some “soft value” (as opposed to hard value being evidence the prosecution can use) in the Select Committee’s activities. 1) It informed us of at least one side of the story! 2) Those 8000 hours of evidence can be used by the DOJ as an initial filter for who might be a quality witness to include in DOJ investigations. And that’s about it.
Independents are known for listening to both sides of the story because we want all of the information before we make our decisions, we are anti-lemming. We want to see processes working fairly and correctly. We do not buy into the party rhetoric of either side. So we already knew we were only getting one side of the story despite being labeled “bi-partisan”. We already knew the whole “bi-partisan label” was a joke. We now eagerly await to see the other side of the story, the DOJ. I disagree mildly that the DOJ will bring charges because the DOJ will most likely learn from their investigations, what the Dems on the Select Committee already knew – that there is Dem culpability which tacitly facilitated the Jan 6 party, that Dems do not wish known. (I am calling it a party because I am very tired of all of the other labels) In the end, I believe the DOJ will be just like NFL referees, they will see a lot of canceling penalties on both sides – which is never a good prosecutorial position. Dems will be yellow flagged for unsportmanlike conduct, poor per-emptive decisions, and taunting. GOPs will be yellow flagged for unsportmanlike conduct in scheming, throwing the punch, and roughing the passer. Neither will suffer any loss of turf or downs – and as Kamala has already sung, “The wheels on the bus go round and round….” In the end, they risk making Trump a MADAM (Make America Democratic Again Martyr) which will in essence cause the MAGA movement to be like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs of American politics. Dems need to be careful and prepare for the MAGA mushroom cloud that is sure to come!
Tom … you are the most hardline “partisan” independent I know. I think you may represented the opinions of some independents — depending on the issue — but I do not think you personify the class. You seem to imply that only those who do not register as either Republican or Democrat are all hard core partisans. I think most Republican and Democrat voters are very capable of objective analysis. Many unregister voters are not non-partisan. Many folks whose opinions align with with either Republicans or Democrats are not registered as such. With long experience in analyzing — and appealing to — the independent voters, I have seen them mostly as leaners. in polling and in voting, the past record suggests that independents vote 40 percent Republican, 30 percent Democrat and 30 percent are switch hitters. That is not an absolute and perfectly consistent election to election, but it is a good measure. What we do know that that very very few independents vote independent. Guys like Sanders and King win elections from Democrat voters. If I were analyzing your vote in conjunction with a specific campaign, I would have you in the “leans right” column — and probably GOP vote most of the time. That may not be how you actually vote. That is what I get from your policy discussion.
Larry, depending on who is running against the GOP and what the issues are, you might be surprised which way I lean. I can say that the majority of my decisions on issues will fall between moderate Dem to moderate GOP. And on some issues I may well appear Libertarian. Anyone who tries to bucket me usually loses.
On this Santos issue, I may appear to be hard right. But one of the main attributes about Independents is they want to see the system work. And this is what I want to see for Santos. There are enough screamers wanting his head, but let me see the system work. Let me see the evidence and hear/or read his replies – let the system gather all of the documented information – and then I will make my final decision. But for now, I will give him the presumption of innocence and the space for the system to work as well as for him to explain himself with documents. Seems to me this position is more leaning left than right. Possibly a bit libertarian :).
+1 Larry and this one sounds so much better coming from you :>)
I would point out that the Jan 6th Committee results are not just “one side of the story”. The 8000 hours of witness testimony mostly came from Republicans who were working with or for Trump. They were under oath and were not told what other witnesses were saying, so they pretty much had to stick with the truth or suffer the consequences. You can argue that the summary was one-sided, but Liz Cheney and Adam Kinziger had no incentive to make Republicans look bad unless the evidence lined up in that direction.
“you sure do take a lot of words!” pot kettle?
You leave out that you did hear the another side of the story — as told by Republicans. Democrats merely asked them questions.
What you didn’t hear was push-back that’s the court case, as expected, and other witnesses. Remember, many ducked the subpoenas – they are hiding something, many pleaded the fifth indicating guilty of something, and one man, the man who could clear it all up, the man who was the leader of the free world, was too afraid to appear. Thus, the committee did not complete their task 100% and the report is preliminary, albeit damning, itself.
You say you must wait: surely the tapes provide you a glimpse of wrongdoing. Certainly the hundreds of guilty pleas, including seditious conspiracy, provide you more than a glimpse of wrongdoing. Granted, what we need to see is what management knew and did on and before that day, and that’s a big part of what the 1/6 team was after. It’s pretty clear Meadows is not only toast but probably flipping like a flapjack as we converse. Some testimony even has him burning documents in the White House office fireplace. For days.
But I agree, this is just grist for the DoJ to do their DoJ thing. And that thing is monumental if for the one reason that it probably will have never been done before: no precedents.
I am pretty sure they will take a stab though. And IMO, the evidence is compelling and when DoJ shakes the dust off it, there will be plenty to indict. And I agree with Larry; they will not indict unless it’s a slam dunk, and given the lack of precedent, that’s an impossible outcome to guarantee.
Meanwhile, and excuse me if I am conjoining threads, but Joe’s lack-of-search-engine says “the medium is the message,” so here goes: are you still protecting Santos after the Brazil embezzlement discovery? Good news is he won’t run and hide there…. Still there after discovering he went from $50K a year to multi-millionaire in just two years with a company that has no website? No clients? No brochure….. Perhaps you want a reset on that opine.
Frank, excuse me for asking, but are you asking me about this:
Meanwhile, and excuse me if I am conjoining threads, but Joe’s lack-of-search-engine says “the medium is the message,” so here goes: are you still protecting Santos after the Brazil embezzlement discovery? Good news is he won’t run and hide there…. Still there after discovering he went from $50K a year to multi-millionaire in just two years with a company that has no website? No clients? No brochure….. Perhaps you want a reset on that opine.
If you are, then please post your evidence or links to your evidence. Thanks!
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3790085-eight-outstanding-questions-surrounding-george-santos/
https://www.theleaderonline.com/single-post/the-leader-told-you-so-us-rep-elect-george-santos-is-a-fraud-and-wanted-criminal
the more you look, it just gets deeper.
bear in mind it’s coming in almost in real time and I would bet some changes will be coming as more information unfolds. But it’s pretty clear that the guy is a bold liar, got this job based on false credentials, and is probably a criminal somewheres as well.
And again, you have dodged my most simple question, do you feel that Warren, Blumenthal, and Clinton should be prosecuted. Why do you continue ducking the simplest of questions!???
I am sorry, I did not know we were obligated to respond to the ridiculous. Wait, Larry barely responds, it must be ok.
As I always say, prosecute ANYONE who breaks our laws. That’s always my answer at the highest level. But for you, on this one, I will dive a bit deeper.
I don’t think you will find Warren’s embellishment to be prosecutable. I do think she stepped over a line and whether one forgives this transgression is personal and on the fence for me. The school said it had no effect and harm is always important in law. Blumenthal you have to source, I have not a clue. Clinton, either of them, are hard pressed to be caught in a lie and not sure which right-wing;blogosphere version you are harping on. But chances are you can not catch her and no prosecutor would take the case. I vote no because in my research in Benghazi, people honestly heard that it WAS the tape at the center of it all. Hillary got so close to the line that a razor would draw blood from both sides, but I do not believe there is evidence of her crossing it. The closest came on the tarmac to the relatives of the slain, but we can never know what she really said there. In print, she did not lie as far as I can tell. Considering Obama stole the election on this, yeah, that’s as close as one could get IMO.
Santos lied to get elected and it worked. You can tout the 8 points but was that because of the Jewish-Holocaust Escaping-Wallstreeter-9/11 survivor-college educated Queens crowd where the once-married Santos is now married to a guy. And maybe being a deadbeat rent scofflaw wanted criminal in Brazil who lies about everything would not have had an effect…..
I mean it’s working-class and above Queens, 70% white and 3% black (no wonder he didn’t claim his slave heritage) by working class I mean just over 50% college (think they like the college lie?), and strongly Republican at the Congressional level. And it’s a different type of “working class” being one of the richest districts in the State. As in $130K median income yet my kid had his group-college apartment there too. Lots of religion there two, might be in the top ten for US counties, with a huge Jewish population (who might be questioning their vote for the fake jew). No, this guy lied about substantial voting attributes to get elected, he got elected, and no one can say his lying was not the reason. May not have been, but no one can say it isn’t.
And it keeps going downhill from there.
I honestly wouldn’t care if Republicans just replaced him with the next guy from the primary, but to let this guy into Congress really lowers the bar of acceptance.
Frank, first my appologies, I forgot this man Santos is from NY the state of Cumo and the father state of all lies.
Now, I have stated if we punish him then lets punish the others! I agree with you.
But let me ask, why when the Dems spent $3M on campaigning against him, why were they not able to turn up all this trash before the election?
I can find much on him, mostly allegations. Nothing yet proven, but it sure does look damning. So I found this interesting article on him from a socialist website: “https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/29/ehwn-d29.html”
Please read this snipet below. Santos argument is that Biden has been lying for 40 years and getting away with it so why can’t I ???
He has a point is all I am saying. And this goes to my point that we the people seem powerless to do anything about the whole lying cabal of these kind of folks, starting with Biden and Trump, and Hillary and going on down the line.
From the article:
In his attempts to deflect attention from his fabrications, Santos has pointed the finger at his Democratic opponents. Biden has been lying for 40 years, he declared, but no one is calling for him to resign.
There is ample truth behind this right-wing demagogy. Biden has declared the pandemic over, even as COVID-19 remains the third-highest cause of death and US life expectancy continues to fall. His administration is prosecuting a proxy war in Ukraine under the false flag of “democracy” and preparing for confrontation with China. Hillary Clinton and the majority of Democrats vociferously endorsed the Iraq war, based on lies. Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and proceeded to wage war in various parts of the world for his entire two terms of office. Biden, the most “pro-union” president ever, just robbed the railroad workers of their right to strike and presides over an economy in which the billionaires are more powerful than ever.
The lesson of this latest political escapade is that the working class has no choice between these liars who represent the ruling class. As the Socialist Equality Party has demonstrated in the deepening class struggle, a new leadership must be built and is being built, in the fight for socialism.
Tom .. I find resume enhancing to be deplorable in all cases. I cannot understand why folks think they can get away with such outrageous claims — especially in public life. The Clinton/Biden/Blumenthal/Warren examples may not have as many false claims, there there are as egregious as Santos’. More so, in the case of Blumenthal, in my opinion. And Warren clearly benefited professionally from her knowingly false claim. The major difference between Santos and the others is how aggressively the media and law enforcement is going after Santos. I think it reflects their anger at losing that New York congressional seat.
I agree Larry. I find resume enhancing to be deplorable as well. And yes, it definitely seems that some folks are rather upset that they lost the seat. But still having said all of this that we agree on, and yes Santos may be a real scum bucket, I look at his platform and it was pretty basic and relative to most Americans. So I still have to ask my self, in a town that is heavy Dem, where Dems spent $3M against him and thought they had it wrapped up, how could he win by 8 points unless he connected to voters and the voters did not care about the false claims and allegations against him?
If law enforcement can prove the allegations like shady Brazilian business dealings, then great, throw him in jail. i think the questions surrounding campaign loans and finance, as well as his income (which he should be able to prove) are just as fair game for him as Abrams whom has a similar history of modest middle class income before election then worth a million a year after her first defeat which she said she earned from speaking engagements.. And if Brazilian authorities are willing to help, great! And where is the GOP on disciplining him or kicking him out? They are calling for it and doing nothing from what I can tell. And if he lied on Federal Disclosure Forms, fine, nail the bastard. And if he took Russian money pay to play style, fine, nail him and throw him in jail. An if the voters are concerned enough, great, have a recall petition and recall election (possibly led by the GOP) like they did with Gavin Newsome – that’s the process.
The only allegation I see that is provable at this time is that the man is a compulsive liar and fake. And if those lies extended to Federal Disclosure Forms, or obtained income illegally, then he should be detained for a few days, questioned thoroughly, – so that he misses being sworn in, and then arrested. If the Brazilians can prove he stole check books and/or if they have outstanding warrants on him, great, send him to Brazil or jail him here.
But lets be clear on a few things:
1) Trump lied like crazy. He said during the primaries that he was under audit and would not release his tax returns. This was a lie! The IRS this week said he was never under audit from 2016 to 2018, and that the audit only began in 2018. Yet he never through the primaries and his presidency, never released his tax returns. That pisses me off!!
2) Do not think that just because I may lean right on recent issues, that I am some sort of GOP. I hate the GOP as much as I hate the Dem party and have no plans to be a member of either of them. If I had my way, this would be a three party system with a pre=election where the top two parties that garner the most votes face off in a second election – similar to France, and, it would be paper ballots only! IF I had my way, the electoral college would be modified to half the a state’s electoral votes are by dedicated electors, the other half of state votes would be apportioned – so as to give more weight to small states. I view the electoral college as the first Affirmative Action program ever implemented by the USA by giving small under-populated states a heavier vote per population weight than the big populated states.
3) One of the great things about being an independent / unaffiliated, is I get to swing from hard right to hard left to everything inbetween. I look at each issue and decide my position. Example, I am for a national health policy and folding up Medicaid and VA Care into one national health policy – not a very GOP or even right leaning approach. On the other liars I have mentioned, prosecute them all for their lies since honesty is neither a right or left issue! I am not for gun control but I am for ammunition control. And in this issue I am not willing to convict him in a blog. I will wait to see what the GOP does, what the legal authorities do, etc. He may be the worst scumbag in either party, but he still gets the presumption of innocence under our system which is the way it works.
4) I hope the GOP and the legal authorities will both have the kahunas to do what is right and get the job done quickly. And if they can’t then let the voters do what they did to Gavin Newsome. That’s the way the system works!
Yeah, we expected to win Queens, the former Peter King seat? Surely, you not be from the Long Island side of Florida…
Warren benefit was really college acceptance and you know to have guilt in many cases, you need harm. The schools said it caused no benefit, therefore no harm: http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/?page=2
But I think it’s harmful enough to keep her of the national stage; if MA wants her, that’s up to them. I don’t think a prosecutor would take the case although I say indite all law breakers, as a general adage.
Come on Man, the freaking President of the United States went after Warren; how much more press do you need.?
Blumenthal should be booted from Congress, by Congress, and then, if possible, indited for any law broken in regards to this egregious lie. I looked it up this time. Amazing he would even try it.
And why should press intensity be a metric for guilt or innocence? If they break the law, they should face the law and any punishment ensuing from breaking the law.
And for liars, we, the people need to step up and just say no. That can include the likes of Warren EVEN if she didn’t profit from the lie, potentially. But like Blumenthal, IMO, Congress should boot Santos if he even gets that far. It’s early yet, and I expect a few more stones to be overturned. He is a professional liar.
Larry, I have done more digging. Oh I will disagree with you on Biden not having as many lies. Here is an interesting article to read on big Biden lies throughout his whole career!!! See this, “https://con-alerts.com/george-santos-resume-scandal-brings-new-attention-to-bidens-lies/?utm_source=jeeng&utm_medium=email”
Now with regard to Santos, I agree with Frank. He said it well with regard to prosecuting Warren and Blumenthal did a similar thing, when you said, “As I always say, prosecute ANYONE who breaks our laws. That’s always my answer at the highest level.”
Its unfortunate, but when I read the criminal code for voting and election fraud, I cannot find anything where it says lying to voters or embellishing your resume to entice people to vote for you, that it is actually a crime. This is probably best explained by the fact that those writing the criminal code probably many of them told some lies while running for office.
So Larry, have you actually found where lying to voters is a punishable crime?
That is why I said if he lied on any legally required disclosures in order to run for office is about the only thing he might be able to be gotten on, unless of course McCarthy or other speaker elect has the kahunas to require a special vote to ban him from Congress. And right now many GOP are pointing to the 40 years of lying by Joe Biden – yet he was never charged for any of it! Santos is drawing similarities to Biden’s career and saying if he can do it so can I.
Please read this summary of significant Biden lies since he began his political career. AT least in 1988 his POTUS campaign was derailed when he was caught in the lies. Democrats should have done the same thing this time with Santos. I would bet that they knew of these lies but held back on it as a fall back plan thinking they may not need it so lets wait and see.
See this interesting article at “https://con-alerts.com/george-santos-resume-scandal-brings-new-attention-to-bidens-lies/?utm_source=jeeng&utm_medium=email”
By the way, I spent an hour searching for info on Brazil arrest warrants on Santos and could not find any. The reason this surprises me is that there is an extradition treaty between the United States and Brazil was signed on January 13, 1961 and implemented on February 11, 1965. The treaty allows both countries to request the return of individuals if the offense(s) committed are considered crimes by both countries. He is accused in our media of stealing check books of elderly under his mother’s care. This would be a crime in both countries. If Santos is wanted in Brazil, they sure are not looking for him very hard because all they have to do is send their warrants to the Sec of State who will give them to the DOJ to execute! So I am sort of doubting these Brazil stories until i hear or read what he says and what our government says.
Have you found anything on arrest warrants for Santos?
By the way, I am not trying to be right leaning or pro GOP on this topic. I am pro “presumption of innocence” which is a concept that both parties agree upon and one of the pillars of our democratic republic. 🙂
” I will disagree with you on Biden not having as many lies.” I don’t see that any of your links support this. Both on volume and “quality.” Remember the Trump hand drawn hurricane map changing the path and US strike zone? I mean the depth and breadth of this man’s lies is too huge to imagine AN Indy not recognizing it, much less one that talks for most Indy’s.
Let’s see some real substantiation of Trump versus Biden lies.
Meanwhile, you seem to have to have a legal cause for Santos to go. You seem to need a punishable crime. I agree, ultimately the law is the law. But there are many forms of punishment and the law is only one measure of a man. We are a nation of laws, but we also have culture, convention, processes, procedures, rules and regulations. I have no issue decrying this guy as a liar and using all laws, rules, regulations, and public opinion to punish him. I just don’t see how he can even be allowed to take the oath of office.
” It reads: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
“will bear true faith” NOPE. “or purpose of evasion” NOPE he’s a born liar evading the truth.
You must realize that this lie would be enough to remove his from any private company, instantly walked out. Why the difference in public office, failure in the rules? Turns out the rules are the same and he can be immediately walked out based on a management vote.
On the law:
The Feds are investigating him probably of the financials which are already a bit hinky. Guy makes $50K one year and two years later is worth millions. There is real estate and Russians in the mix. Plus, given his tendancy to avoid the truth, one has to imagine he fibbed on the finances too. The Feds will investigate any legal infractions and they are on the case.
The State is investigating similar things at the state level.
Innocent until proven not, we’ll let the clock roll on that.
On the rules: The House Speaker can give this guy an office and nothing more. No committees appointments, nothing. Just an office. Committee shunning is done all the time.
The House only needs 2/3rds vote to expel him; his seat would be filled by his party I think so no harm, no foul —- especially for this liar. Most resign before expulsion and can immediately join the Scaramucci Society with it’s President Flynn, secretary Priebus, and coffee boy Tom Price.
It is only right that this guy be fired and not paid by taxpayers for the next two years for doing nothing.
None of these “recommendations” will ever be presented in any court, for several reasons (mostly just legal ones):
a) This “committee” has no authority to “recommend” anything, as it was not formed according to Congress Rules.
b) Therefore, all “summonses” and other actions have only the character of a ‘Private Search for Potentially Negative Matters’ against someone.
c) As these “searches” only went against ONE side, they cannot be recognized as an ‘Investigation’ in the sense of the Law.
d) Moreover, as the declared Interest was in ‘harming one person and his political future’ (“Trump never again!”), this can be called ‘Witch Hunt’!
e) ALL THIS PUT TOGETHER MAKES THESE “COMMITTEE” MEMBERS GUILTY OF IMPERSONATING A ‘CONGRESS INVESTIGATION GROUP’
– WHICH IS A CRIME OF CLAIMING A NON-EXISTENT AUTHORITY AND OFFICE OF THE LAW: AN IMPRISONABLE FELONY!
The “committee” have now the choice of
i) attempting to give their actions the look of “lawful actions” by handing their “findings’ to prosecuting authorities, DoJ (for rejection), or
ii) trying to disappear (as persons) and letting their “findings” stand as propaganda posters for the next elections (as they were planned).
AS THEIR ACTIVITY WOULD FALL UNDER THE JUDICIARY OF WASHINGTON DC, this may “excuse” them (for reason of partisan courts) –
BUT, AS IT INVOLVED A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF CONGRESS, SCOTUS COULD BE REQUESTED TO INVESTIGATE AND JUDGE!
In which case, the matter may be directed to a different, more unbiased court of Justice.
[By the way, all “penalties” et all handed out on the grounds of “Contempt of Court” etc. are, of course, void – as Contempt for the “committee” was more than lawful and a Civil Right.]
I agree Frank. You said it well with regard to prosecuting Warren and Blumenthal did a similar thing, when you said, “As I always say, prosecute ANYONE who breaks our laws. That’s always my answer at the highest level.” Its unfortunate, but when I read the criminal code for voting and election fraud, I cannot find anything where it says lying to voters or embellishing your resume to entice people to vote for you, that it is actually a crime. This is probably best explaineed by the fact that those writing the criminal code probably many of them told some lies while running for office.
So have you actually found where lying to voters is a punishable crime?
That is why I said if he lied on any legally required disclosures in order to run for office is about the only thing he might be able to be gotten on, unless of course McCarthy or other speaker elect has the kahunas to require a special vote to ban him from Congress. And right now many GOP are pointing to the 40 years of lying by Joe Biden – yet he was never charged for any of it! Santos is drawing similaries to Biden’s career and saying if he can do it so can I.
Please read this summary of significant Biden lies since he began his political career. AT least in 1988 his POTUS campaign was derailed when he was caught in the lies. Democrats should have done the same thing. I would bet that they knew of these lies but held back on it as a fall back plan thinking they may not need it so lets wait and see.
See this interesting article at “https://con-alerts.com/george-santos-resume-scandal-brings-new-attention-to-bidens-lies/?utm_source=jeeng&utm_medium=email”
By the way, I spent an hour searching for info on Brazil arrest warrants on Santos and could not find any. The reason this suprises me is that there is an extradition treaty between the United States and Brazil was signed on January 13, 1961 and implemented on February 11, 1965. The treaty allows both countries to request the return of individuals if the offense(s) committed are considered crimes by both countries. If Santos is wanted in Brazil, they sure are not looking for him very hard because all they have to do is send their warrants to the Sec of State who will give them to the DOJ to execute! So I am sort of doubting these Brazil stories until i hear or read what he says and what our government says.
Have you found anything lie arrest warrants for Santos?
“Have you found anything lie arrest warrants for Santos?”
Since you already know your answer to your question, what’s your real point?
That lying is not illegal?
That lying that would have you instantly walked out of any company is OK for Congress?
That if it is not illegal, we can say it’s bad and that’s it?
I have listed some of the things that can be done; it is still early to talk about actual crimes, but the big one that sticks out is why can business fire these resume “enhancers” at will, but Congress, where we give them the title of “honorable,” has no will to do so?
If they have the “will,” Congress, specifically the Speaker, can make this guy resign pretty easily. i don’t think they even lose the seat. But if McCarthy lets him slide to retain the speakership, well, in his case that’s just another nail in a sealed coffin.
Sorry to be such a buzz kill but I am just not feeling chipper today for some reason. Might be the foul air below……
This should be a Larry Horist/Frank Stetson blog. The BS flows like diarrhea.